host: if you were affected by

the hurricane, as your is the l.mber you can cal we are also on twitter. if you put @cspanwj, we will get it and put it on the air. we are also on facebook. impacted outages and flooding will linger. her can i read lost much of its bluster by the time it was -- hurricane irene estimates of its bluster but it's a destructive quake left 21 dead and 4.5 million without electricity.

what you think about how things can doubt and what the response was -- how things panned out what the response was. this piece says, "mostly praise for the mayor. michael bloomberg told urban dwellers that they had to take

the threat of the dangerous weather seriously. he was a decisive crisis manager, demanding that 370,000 people evacuate their homes along with the first raindrops fell." kansas city, missouri, mike, what do you think? caller: i think all the people who suffer damage should be able to get low-interest loans that are easy to qualify for that help employment and get the economy moving. that's it. thank you. host: looking at "the washington times," "officials began assessing damage sunday from the retain. officials it attributed the lack of damage and relatively low loss of life to teamwork between the government and federal emergency management agency. no longer a political punching bag, fema received bipartisan praise from governors."

new jersey, democrats' line, good morning. caller: good morning guest: host: did you experience the reins and storms? caller: yes, i did. electric went out, and it did until 9:00 a.m.. host: what did you think of governor christie? caller: i was surprised he got in touch with obama to help out, and i was very happy that obama, our president, took action way before everything started. host: this is in nebraskan caller. robin on the republicans' line. caller: that report is wrong. [unintelligible]

host: is that what you're hearing? we're getting off the ap wire it that it is at least 21. we may learn about more. linda, jackson, michigan. caller: i was commenting earlier -- this is in regards to a man who called earlier yesterday or something, and he blamed obama for the damage of hurricane irene. that's all i have to say. host: why are you calling? does that upset you? caller: no, because if this guy blames obama, he is kind of putting obama up there with a god. host: what do you think about that? caller: well, i don't. host: looking at "the wall street journal," politicians push to stay out in front of events.

"god is, mayors and barack obama they were seen driving disaster preparations. they were spurred not only money to ensure public ticket bought by the lessons of -- not only by the need to ensure public safety but by the lessons of her can katrina." >> if they need something, i want to know about it. we are going to keep it up as long as hurricane season continues. host: we had one caller from new jersey this morning, saying he was out of town during the last winter's blizzard just like mayor bloomberg of new york. some say that governor christie missed an opportunity to show is command of operations and skill as a communicator.

"mr. christy told reporters late sunday that his response to one ofane katrina was ' the things i it had been thinking about. we all remember those images, and i did not want to leave resources on the table and people on the southern part of our state where they could end up losing their lives. my first job is to make sure they don't.'" good morning. caller: i'm wondering how many people want less government and its allies and don't want the federal government to be funded are going to be going for her -- for hurricane relief when this is all said and done. i want to thank obama for the work he is doing try to get us out of this right wing dark age we are in.

host: "ron paul blasts fema. what do you think, sue? democratic caller in milwaukee. caller: i guess i am a little upset, because hurricane graded down to a one. all i saw on tv all weekend was coverage of this hurricane.

what we have a flooding in the midwest, nobody covered it morning, noon and night. that was a very serious time a couple of years ago. i am thinking, maybe i need to live in the northeast and, of course, new york, because that seems to be the only city that got this may are out there. i guess i was a little upset with it. i feel bad for the people, and i know they are having a hard time, but come on. even when they have an earthquake in california it is not covered like this. i know that obama is trying to do his job, but it was a little overkill, i thought, as far as the reporting and stuff went. host: joe, republican in new orleans. caller: americans are complaining, complaining, complaining. this time the nation is really

prepared, and the government in new jersey -- they i trying to make a political thing out of disasters like that. quit complaining. host: how are you doing in six years after katrina? caller: i am doing well. it was a real rough time. it took me six years with the money from my house, and there are a lot of other inconveniences. i had to stay in hotels, spent all my money. one thing i would like to tell everybody, when and they said evacuate, evacuate. i lost my brother before katrina, then my father six months later. i feel flashbacks, it you know, because of that experience.

it is not nice. prepare yourself and know where you are going. i will probably have a flash? until i die, ok? -- flashbacks until i die, ok? host: do you think this response was approved because of what happened where you live years ago? caller: you mean, right now? it was -- the american people are not really prepared for disasters. we have been living too comfortably. from now on they should be alert and do what they have to do. if america is attacked by outside forces, we are not prepared. the last time we were prepared,

when jfk -- [unintelligible] america as a whole is not prepared for a real major disaster. host: let's take a look at how the "daily news" in new york looks at the response. "too much was just right. sure, irene was not as advertised. plenty of new yorkers grumbled that mandatory evacuations were in extreme overreaction, but history will remember hurricane irene irene as a victory for mayor bloomberg." he was warning and coaching yorkers on what was touted as a killer hurricane. george in orlando. what you think, just right, not

enough? caller: i think it was excellent. part, i thinks was excellent yes, there are some who want to be heroes and not evacuate. when they say mandatory, i think those who don't go should be arrested and taken out any way. i don't mean a rest of them -- a or anything like that, but take them out for safety purposes. you are risking lives, and i don't think that is fair. the republicans lost their mind -- ron paul, the governor of texas and all that. president obama is doing everything he can, and the republican side and the tea

party one to nothing to comply with the man. host: going off what george mentioned, you're in that-- here in the "daily news." "two kayakers were on the staten island at area." there is discussion about who should pick up the tab for that, and if that was really the smartest move for them to be out in those waters. line.democrats' caller: hi, how are you? host: good, thank you. caller: i am looking what our whether that is up here, and we usually have a major snowstorms and power outages, heavy snow on the trees. power lines making, ice storms, you name it.

the storm came through. we did not get much. everybody is complaining about this and that. sure, the coast got slammed. it is inevitable. it is hurricane season. host: what do you think about how the authorities handled it? caller: the authorities can only handle it as it comes to them. is weather. if you try to turn this into a political thing, you know, everybody is all hype on to that right now. you got obama picking up after george bush. that is enough of a statement to say, oh, my god, what are you people looking at? this is a storm. it is real simple. host: calvin, independent in winston-salem, north carolina. caller: good morning. thank you for the chance to call

c-span, and kudos to you and the rest of the team that to a great job. i am thoroughly impressed and grateful for how the federal, state and local authorities have all responded. to piggyback off the previous caller at's comments, it is interesting how in the midst of a disaster, it almost -- not "it almost" -- it really doesn't matter if you are republican or democrat or independent or otherwise. it reminds me of a guest on my radio show was a public official and how if people want their trash pickup and roads fixed, it does not matter what your party is. the seeming trend of the smaller government -- yes, we have a

deficit of needed to be fiscally responsible -- when you have an earthquake on tuesday like we experienced in winston-salem and then have a hurricane, it is not going to be private dollars that gets us back to recovery. it is going to be government dollars that trickle-down from washington to, in our case, raleigh and the local community. we have to be fiscally responsible, but we also want to be cognizant that it is government that it is living a village of a normal life. -- a relatively normal life. host: brenda writes on facebook. "there would have been calls for impeachment and marches in the streets if they did not have a response. they did a good job."

"damnedi f you do, damned if you don't. underpreparation never does anyone any good ." haymarket, virginia. steve, independent line. caller: it was much worse in isabel, but the disaster is in february when the cold front generators are shut down because of obama's repeal the laws of physics, reference in his comic book classes he took a harvard. host: republican, miami, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to comment, all my family is from new york and new jersey. yes, the storm -- my heart goes

out to a lot of people that have had a lot of flooding and have to deal with a lot of disaster. i come from florida and we have to deal with this kind of thing during the hurricane season and you have to be normally prepared. this was a shock for a lot of people who not experienced anything like this. when i spoke to families in new york, i was so grateful it was not worse, i got a lot of pictures and trees and everything. as far as the government, it did step up, but at times we have to take responsibility for ourselves. there is a lot of hype about the evacuation of new york. my kids, my daughter and my mom were saying how many people were outside, and many people were not at the emergency centers and

things like that. at the same time, we are responsible for around -- for our own selves, and we need to listen when they say we need to evacuate. at the same time, we need to be responsible. we cannot rely on government like what happened with katrina, where they blame everything on the government . as individuals, we need to take responsibility for ourselves. we're grateful that the government is there an they provide whatever the need is. i am a republican, and no sometimes we tend to il to much about government -- and i know it sometimes we tend to yell to much about government . i know what it is to be at a -- in a hurricane and a situation like that. thank god it wasn't worse. host: "washington post"

editorial today -- "farewell: irene. hurricane irene's rampages through the washington area was less destructive than had been protected -- predicted, but that doesn't mean that officials were wrong to prepare." "virginia gov. robert mcdonnell warned that half the state's 30 fatalities attributed to hurricane isabel occurred after the storm as a result of exposure to electrical wires or accidents with chain saws." "irene might have claimed more lives but for intelligent decisions to evacuate residents from lower-lying areas, curtail

travel and impose curfews. people at all levels of government cooperated in formality and communicating the decision as both before and while the storm was going on at." fema listen to the administrator, craig fugate. >> we will be there for the survivors, we will be there for the length of these disasters, and we're not going home just because it won't be on the news. we have a lot of work ahead of us and we will support local communities as they began recovery. thank you. host: fema 8 administrator craig fugate. what did it look like from where you were watching, stephen? caller: thank you for taking my call. you know what gets me is ron paul just came out and blasted fema for katrina. he has a republican. he ought to know that katrina

happened under a republican president. this president has done everything he could to straighten up fema and get everything working right. if you listen to -- you had on fugate the other day talking about the changes. they had a press conference. they are doing everything right. you learn from katrina, which still has republicans saying we don't need fema no more. you know, if you know what federal government -- if you don't want federal government, just get a passport, jump on an airplane, and go to wherever you want to go that doesn't have a government and be happy there and live on your own. host: bill writes on twitter.

california. independent line. welcome. caller: hello? host: hi there. caller: i heard during the hurricane that there was -- [unintelligible] host: i'm sorry, what? caller: ufo sighting? host: i don't know what you are talking about. what did you think of the response? caller: pretty bad, especially like with the new orleans. we have a family that lives in new york. host: so you were paying attention, i bet, closely. caller: yeah. host: good morning, anthony. caller: hey, good morning. i firmly believe the officials responded appropriately, because nobody has any idea what type of activity is going to come about when a hurricane comes through. host: did you experience this

where you were? caller: it did not turn out a way that everyone assumed, but you definitely have to be reprepared for whatever comes. host: what did you do to prepare? caller: generators, candles, food on ice, you know, just in case, because you have no idea. if the electricity went out, it is the generators. if the generators don't work out right, i'm pretty much just prepared for least seven days. host: your governor, chris christie, is a republican and you are i democrat. what did you think of the response? caller: you know, he's just trying to wake people up and get them to pay attention brought people tend to think a lot of other things. i think he was a bit abrupt, but he was just trying to get the

point across and let the people now to please adhere to the warning. host: "usa today" editorial. "does it mean that the mandatory evacuations that close to subways and wall-to-wall tv coverage are overdone? the answers are cliche -- is better to be safe than sorry, it is prudent to hope for the best prepare for the worst. nobody wants to become another ray nagin or another george w. bush, who had appointed michael brown, a man with little background in handling emergencies and a recent job with an arabian horse association to lead fema." let's go to a resident of new orleans. mary, democratic caller.

caller: hello? host: you are on the program. caller: i'm from new orleans. irene was overexposed. i went through katrina. ok? um -- and i traveled miles and miles and miles to get out of the way of katrina. the people who stayed in new orleans -- i saw people dead, people on their rooftops. we had -- in new orleans, there was no one to come help the

people who stayed. people on their roofs. and it was horrible. there was a woman in a wheelchair at the superdome who was dead. dead. for over a week. i was lucky enough to be in houston finally. and all we saw was nothing. and ray nagin begged the president, begged him over and over to get us to help. host: mary, thank you for sharing your personal story, which i am sure that the e -- short cannot be easy -- caller: warned --

host: what do you think at everybody learn from that experience? caller: to get the heck out of here. host: and the federal officials -- caller: with irene? of course, because it was going up the east coast. i want to know where our perfect president was when irene w = going on -- when irene was going on. host: the president did go back to washington and we will hear more from the news conference in just a moment. "the new york times" reports, "for some medical he evacuees, safety brought its own difficulties. one gentleman was late to

receive his medicines and was evacuated to the armory, a designated shelter for patients with special medical needs. the goal was to avoid a situation like after the one with hurricane katrina, one of vulnerable patients suffered any acquisitions took days." pre-storm evacuations, however, came with their own risks." alabama, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to say, get rid of fema. fema is no good. they come in after the storm and give us money to clean it up, and now we're being sued for the money back.

in other words, you go to the beach, all of it was destroyed. i am not talking about 1 home left. it was all gone. we don't need fema. they have a big publicity out there, the world's best, they going to take care of you. they ain't going to do nothing. get rid of fema. thank you. host: "the washington post" has a story. "fema is temporarily suspending some payments to build roads, schools and other structures destroyed during spring tornadoes in joplin, missouri, and said the states and other natural disasters to pay for damage caused by hurricane irene.

the obama administration will need to request a supplemental funding from congress, possibly provoking another fight over federal spending as the congressional super committee prepares to identified trillions of dollars in government spending cuts. last week, after a virginia earthquake that rattled much of the east coast, house majority leader eric cantor, republican of virginia, said that any new money for fema disaster assistance would need to be offset by spending cuts. on saturday, the house appropriations committee chairman called on the senate to quickly pass the house gop's version of the annual homeland security spending measure, which includes billions of dollars in additional money for the disaster fund this year and $2.5 million -- $2.5 billion for the next fiscal year. despite potential funding shortfalls, president obama said that the federal government would continue providing full assistance to affected states and cities. 'as i've told governors and

mayors, if they need something, i want to know about it.'" george, welcome. caller: good morning. michelle? host: no. go right ahead. caller: i was born in miami and raised in new york. good thing that it did not hit here in florida. i was worried about my relatives in new york. i think that the government did a good job. i remember growing up, and my mother and used to have gloves and boots and it is better to be prepared, better to have to much than too little. i like the way you handle your calls, very patient and very kind.

have a good day. host: let's look at secretary napolitano in speaking with the president and fema administrator fugate yesterday. >> the department of homeland security will continue to coordinate the response through fema, making sure the entire federal family is working as one to support affected states. host: homeland security secretary janet napolitano. florida, dean, republican. florida has a lot of experience with these kinds of events. caller: hello? host: hi there. caller: i think you're doing a wonderful job you are so beautiful. i am 90 years old and i call in pretty regularly. i think they did right and getting people to evacuate. when wilma came to florida, i was all alone. i am 90 years old.

i was terrified. they said to evacuate, and i did not drive. i think it is better to be prepared, and i think you are doing a wonderful job. host: thank you. do you think at ends up being a boy who cried wolf situation if it is not as bad as they feared? caller: not at all. i think it is better to be prepared. i lost a window during that time, and i was frightened. it is really sad for people who did not prepare. i live to five days on cheese and crackers and peanut butter and i did find an added two flashlights. -- and i had two flashlights. host: thanks for your call. diane, democratic caller. caller: i just wanted to say that i believe the government response was adequate and appropriate. in new york city, we are not used to these types of events.

if you recall a couple of days ago, we had an earthquake, and everybody ran outside. we did the wrong thing. i think we have to be prepared, the media prepared, and then the government has to of us get it back together. even shutting down the mta was appropriate, because if this system floods -- we have had bad rains and parts of that system flooded regularly. if that whole system is under water, this city dies. mass transit house to function. the government gets an a +. host: argue still with us? caller: yes, i am. host: how did this affect your life? harlem andvlive in

we had a lot of rain. i was prepared, we got permission and we did what we had to do. thank goodness that it was not as bad as what was expected. there was a nursing home in the queen's area that, during the storm, the fire department had to go in and evacuate 31 patients. it was not as bad as anticipated, but it was bad enough. host: do you have a sense of how your day is going to be affected? i am looking at a "new york times" story that says subway plans limited morning service. caller: i am on a train line that is pretty reliable. it is not an elevated train on the long island rail road. which runs the state into up state new york. those lines are more affected. they run on tracks that were flooded. dee, let's hear from

impacted by the storm in connecticut . caller: good morning. thank you for c-span2 it to win it back down nearly all of our trees. a lot of cars and people were locked in. if it was not for fema, with trees hitting these people's houses, if it was worse than it really was, fema would have come in and help everybody out. you cannot be against something that is going to help people. that just does not seem it logically sound to be against something that is going to help everybody out. especially in a crisis situation, where we need assistance and there are not banks available. all of our homes were down, all of our tables were down. we did not have anything to

see what was going on other than a hand-held radio. if it wasn't for fema, we would be at a worse situation than we actually were. host: what did you think about the local response? caller: i think our local government in connecticut did more than their part, because they got us prepare days in advance. you know, look, this is going to be -- it could be bad. they made it where it was good, because begot warnings. as long as you get for one you should -- you get forewarned, you should be able to prepare yourself. if you are prepared, you can put your family as its possession -- but your family in a safe position, your pets, your home, your important papers and things. you need the government to tell you, hey, there is something bag tom lan-- something

coming. there are a lot of think that people don't realize. we don't have eyes in the sky. they do. we don't have ground patrol. they and. they have to tell us that this is going to happen and i would rather have somebody tell me, hey, disaster is coming, you need to prepare. i will prepare, because i am the person that doesn't want to die. host: sal writes on twitter. "i have water in my basement." let's look at an e-mail from seattle. irene is thek proper name for this hurricane.

oklahoman what an thinks. what do you think, jane? caller: i just want to comment on how harkening it was to hear the cooperation from all sides of the political spectrum but i heard republican governors it praise the democratic president, i heard democratic mayors praise republican governors. i think they got so much fun because of the corporation. they might take that lesson on to everyday life, or will they revert to personal attacks and forget that they differ in philosophy but don't differ in human rights and beliefs? host: let's go to david, a

republican in seattle, washington. someone in washington said they think this shows the east coast media bias. what do you think? caller: no, i don't think it shows bias. i think it is great that we were able to pull together, and all we did here was pray for you guys. i have a brother in new york city. i think they were all born. host: adequately so? -- ir: i would host: bel would believe so. host: charlie writes in -- let's go to flint, michigan.

maurice on the democrats' line. caller: good morning, how are you? it is amazing how people get on tv and start talking and tried to trash the media. we cannot afford to stick to ignorance. when katrina came, people complain, complain. if they tell you to get out, get out. only god knows how strong it is going to be. people who comply afterwards, i have no sympathy for them. host: another comement on twitter. looking at another comment --

looking at a couple other items in the news, former secretary of state colin powell dismissed as cheap shots the charges will let him and others in former vice president dick cheney's now memoir. these were comments that mr. powell made on cps's "face the nation." "it is a new chapter in the

story of men who have markedly different styles." florida republican senator -- tea partyers and establishment like what they see in him, but he is pushing off talk of being a vice-presidential candidate. "do not come here expecting optimism. at a time is 13%, foreclosure rates are among the highest in -- unemployment is 13%, foreclosure rates are among the highest in the country these days they are just trying to get by. there is little interest in the coming special election in that second congressional district." not too much, according to the reporter, interest there. that is all for this segment of

the program. coming up, we will talk about the movement of conservative women and what role they are playing bit later on we will talk about consumers and federal regulations. we will be right back.

>> watch more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's web site for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the landscape with twitter feed, facebook updates, todidate bios, and links see spent media partners. all at c-span.org/campaign2012.

>> it might not surprise you that we think good things come in twos. c-span has coverage of the house, live coverage of the senate in c-span2. you can see them whenever you want at the c-span video library. >> weekends on c-span3, american history tv. >> it is washington your way with c-span. >> created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: janice crouse is with the concerned women of america. good morning. good morning,: libby.

we are the largest women's public policy organization. we represent more than 500,000 women across the united states, and we have leaders in 43 states, and we have women who are part of action teams in every single state. we are very much of a grass- roots organization, very concerned about the issues that face this country. that is who we are. we have headquarters in the u.s., the state capital, the nation's capital, at the corner of 15th and k. host: and you are a conservative organization. guest: we are conservative, pro- life, pro-marriage, pro-family. host: how do you pick issues and which side to get on? guest: we have the six core issues that govern what we address, because we cannot address everything. those are the things we focus on. as i said, we are grass-roots

organization, and that is kind of unusual, actually, for washington, d.c. so many organizations just have a national headquarters here, and that staff handles everything. as i said, we have the state leaders unfair action teams in every single state. -- and fair action team had every single state. we think our strength is as an organization, because they are at the local level and they care very deeply about the issues. they meet together, they pray, and they anct. they adopt a legislative or and they work on petitions, they call legislative hours, state governoment, and if we ask them to, they can shut down phones at the state capitol and the white house. host: you mentioned the six issues. guest: education, sanctity of life, pornography, sovereignty.

those are broad categories, but it is safe to say we are pro- life, definitely pro-family, pro-marriage. host: here are the numbers to call if you would like to speak with janice crouse. which of the presidential candidates in the emerging field at this point is most in line with your values? guest: we don't endorse, generally. we've never endorsed a presidential candidate. we do have a pac and that group does indoors local candidates and state leaders as well as federal lands. but in general, we don't. we will see if we do this year. there are some very good candidates. we do talk about the issues, though, and we talk about them in the context of the various people who are running for office -- host: can you give us a sense of

who has values you feel comfortable with? guest: i number of them do it almost all of them have some aspect of our issues that they emphasize. it is a very good pac. we are very pleased with the candidates who are running this year. we obviously are very evangelical. we are bible-based. we are very concerned about the personal faith of the candidates. we are very concerned about how that works out in their lives, if that is an authentic faith or just eight rhetorical or political faith. those are things we are concerned about, those are things we evaluate. obviously, we are not fans of barack obama because of his policies that he has put into place. we very much opposed obamacare. we are very opposed to the expansion of government that has happened during the short term that he served. we are very concerned about all of the debt and deficit.

those are issues that will be very much at the forefront as we face 2012. host: as a woman's organization, is it significant to see women candidates? is there a week or party you would give to someone like representative michele bachmann or former governors sarah palin because they are women? guest: no, we are the women's organization that like cement. the are very thrilled to see sarah palin and -- thathe wome's organization that likes men. obviously, we are very thrilled to see sarah palin and michelle bachmann. it is very exciting to see two women who are conservative, people who embrace our values, our front runner candidates this year. of course, sarah palin has not declared, i am aware of that, but she is amongst the candidates. we are very pleased. host: do you think she is going to get in the race?

guest: it seems to me that it has been a long time. she has let a lot of people get a lot of ground on her at this point. but i cannot imagine her sitting it out, actually. she has done so many things that are typical of a candid it, that you say, why is she doing that if she is not going to be a candidate? but she has a lot of other things going for, a lot of personal things going on in her life, so we shall see to it that is what i really like about sarah palin and michele bachmann. they are women who face the same kinds of things you an idea. they have a personal life and personal responsibilities -- that you and i do. they have a personal life and responsibilities that they need to balance with their career, they have done a good job doing that, maintaining their femininity and charm at the same time assuming difficult responsibilities. host: canton, ohio. nancy is an independent caller. caller: oh, hi.

i am very critical of the concerned women of america. host: how come? caller: they have a bigoted views on to their religion. anti-mormon and anti-catholic. can you be honest about this? guest: hi, nancy. thank you for calling. is concerned women for america. it is interesting that you fraser question that way. we are very strong evangelical christians, and we have a number of catholics who are among our constituency. even some of our leaders are catholic. that is just an erroneous criticism. when you say we are against things, we have not spoken out against any other faith. we have taken our faith very seriously and we tried to be authentic with our faith but we're not about criticizing other faiths. we are very strong biblically

and we take that seriously and we take that stance very strongly. we are not about running down other people and other people's religions. we are about standing for our own. that is what america is all about. we believe in freedom of religion, and that is one of our six core values, religious liberty. obviously, other faiths have the opportunity to express their views and that is their responsibility. it is not our responsibility to defend them. we work with mormons on the issue of family at the u.n. and other arenas. we are very cooperative with other faiths. but we do stand very firmly in our own corner and for our own faith and let that speak for itself. host: ruth is a democratic caller and madison, ohio. caller: i wanted to also ask the same question. she sounds like a very religious

group. they sound as though they are definitely interested in promoting religion. i am very interested to know what their political affiliation is, because everything she has said has been a very conservative and sounds very much like it would be a republican party agenda. host: all right, let's get a response t. caller: hi, ruth. my mother's name is ruth so i like your name. we are a strong religious group. we are unapologetically biblical in our views. when it comes to political affiliation, we are not a political organization. obviously, we deal with political issues, but we deal with them from the perspective that everybody in america has an opinion about issues, and we fight for the issues that we are concerned about and that are part of our mission. that is what america's all about, as i said with the previous caller.

when you have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, we exercise those freedoms in standing for the issues that are the mission of our organization. and we do that unapologetically, because we have that right and that is who we are, that is what our constituents belong to. but we are not partisan organization. we work with democrats and republicans on the hill, we lobby those who agree with us and those who oppose us. we have a reputation for honesty and straightforwardness on the hill, even amongst those who disagree with us. some of our best friends on the hill are people who disagree with us, because they no they can trust the data that we have. we have in our whole history, since i've been there 12 years, never had to any statement we made -- never had to retract any statement we

made. we are proud of the work we do, and the people who work with us are very comfortable working with us because they know who we are and they know who we -- where we come from. we are unapologetic about that, but we work with everybody and we feel very straightforwardly and honestly with our issues. you know where we stand and that is not better question. host: question on twitter. guest: president obama says he's a question and we don't believe that questioning what people say about their beliefs -- says he's a christian and we all believe in questioning what people say about their belief -- spiritdon't -- don't believe in questioning what people say about their beliefs. we believe i am looking at people's lives and see if they're putting action behind the words and whether their attitudes and values reflect their beliefs.

those are the things that we use as criteria. but we don't judge people. that is god's province, not our province. we stand for what we believe and let the chips fall where they may in other instances. host: janice crouse is with the concerned women for america. she also served as president of crouse communications and was associate vice president of academic affairs at taylor university. she was a speechwriter during the bush administration, official delegate to the united nations during 2002 and 2003, and also an author. her books include "let's go to , independent line. caller: your group was conservative and pro-family.

the ideas the to those that are conservative are against family -- this rhetoric disingenuous. can you explain it? >> we are per-family. we are stating who we are and what our priorities are. we work strongly to strengthen the family. we believe the family is the unit indicative of a strong society. you cannot have a strong democracy without a strong family. we enable communities to be strong. that is a poor -- a core value for us. we believe in the family and work to strengthen the family. our position is very clear. the best way to raise children is a mom and dad family. any other according to the urban

institute falls very short in significant ways. there are predictable risks that comer from raising children in any other family type. we are unapologetically -- with the stance that we take. i do not see that as being biased or contradictory. we are very clear about who we are. we have a very solid social science data behind the scenes as we take. host: can you give us an example of an organization or religious group that has different priorities that have a different belief in christianity or religion? can you relate to them on that level? guest: i cannot think of one off

of the top of my head. there are plenty of wonderful organizations that are centered on secular values. those values are very admirable. they happen to be based in judeo-christian ethics. many of those that are secular organizations are also basing their values on that same judeo- christian foundation. even though they do not necessarily believe the bible or believe in the same way that we do, they base their values on the same principles that we do. host: so much of the discussion is take a stun the economy. what about economic and social issues that your group is very ?ncerned about the ta

? guest: we have had many articles about this. the debt and deficits racked up during this administration. we did a paper on the president's health-care plan and on the debt and deficit. these are reports that are on our website. your listeners can go to them and find them. we are very involved, because we believe the economic situation that we face as a nation right now is undermining the family and all of the things that we as an organization feel that are part and parcel. we look at why the united states is looked at as a leader in

democracy and freedom from all around the world. host: carl from north caroline, a, welcome. caller: i have a suggestion for your core values. how about we elect one senator and one congressman per state? it would force them to work together. it would force by partisanship. we need to get rid of their mental waste, eliminated by 50%. what is your opinion on that and how would your organization feel about something like that? guest: we totally agree with you about the waste into the government expansion. it is something we have been addressing for the last few months. it is a top priority for us. we have been working very

strenuously, that issue. we believe that it does undermine the very basic foundation of this country. we cannot continue with the levels of debt in the government expansion that we haven't the current time. it is a burden that we cannot pass along. morally, it is reprehensible to pass that kind of burden on to our kids and grandkids. this is outrageous. our organization has been very involved with that issue and we have lobbied on capitol hill. we will continue to do so. we have hearings on capitol hill where we have release papers critical on the debt and deficit. i encourage you to go to our web site and a look at those papers. it gives an overview of the problem and some solutions we think he would be -- you would approve of. host: next call from louisiana. caller: two questions.

initially there is an organization that the justice women, but the more you speak, it sounds more political. you say you are against abortion. there are many that are against abortion. what do you do to support that stand, other than tell the mother to just say no? the other question. he speak very clearly about your support about president obama and the amount of debt that he has incurred, but the country has incurred during this time. you were with bush, i am not sure if it is one or two. he got the country into two wars. could you address the debt at

that time? guest: we addressed the debt in terms of government expansion. we did not oppose the wars. we felt as did the democrats in congress that it was an effort that the whole country should unite behind. in terms of abortion, we have been one of the groups at the forefront if not the group at the forefront of fighting abortion. we fight it not only on the political level at the nation's capital, but that is who we are. we are an organization here in the nation's capital to have impact politically on the issues that are concerning the women at the grass-roots level. we are unapologetic about going to capitol hill and the lobbying about the issues we are concerned about. we have them at the forefront in making sure the laws are as

favorable to deserving life as we can possibly make them. we do that by looking at the language. we steady every single bill that has anything to do with abortion, to make sure that we make as much progress as we can in preserving life not just at the federal level but at the state level as well. that is our top priority, when it comes to those six core issues that i mentioned earlier. life is at the top of those. it brings peace to the laws that we endorse. ont: let's get to statistics abortion in united states. 750,000 when roe vs. wade was passed. 1.4 million. it grows over the next decade and then started to disk -- decrease. now at 1.2 million in 2008.

why have the number of abortions in the teen pregnancies have been decreasing? guest: i think technology has a lot to do with it. so many young people have seen sonograms. you really can see that that is a baby that is to be born. there is no way that people looking at those sonograms on facebook in the private pictures that people sent via e-mail. everybody has seen them. i think that has changed public opinion dramatically. a second thing that i think really has had an impact on young people in particular is so many young girls have seen what has happened to their friends. they have seen girls that felt they were in love with some guy, who, the minute they got pregnant, the guy was forcing them to have an abortion. they have seen the heartbreak, the physical problems that some have after abortions.

it is a very traumatic experience for many of the young nurse -- young girls today and at the college level. i think that has had a dramatic impact on changing young people's views. yen people today are far more conservative than their parents are. we are seeing the attitude change has taken place. i would like to think that we have been a part of that as well. we have helped to pass laws to require parental approval or notification. we have helped to expose instances where schools have been willing to drive kids to get an abortion when parents did not know it. being diligent about those kinds of things i think has made a difference as well. many young people have abortions from fear or coercion more than a desire to not have that baby.

thoselet's look at numbers on teen birth rates. we get this data from the center for disease control. back in 1991, 62 per 1000 women. in 2007, 43 per 1000 women. the following year, 42. in 2009, down 39 per 1000 women. guest: it is amazing in so gratifying. that is one of the encouraging things when you look at culture today. are down.nancies and c i think they are wising up and learning from what is in the culture, some of the bill -- biblical principals really do work as parameters for life. i think a lot of teams are getting a long-range view of

life, not just in the pleasure right now, but to pursed own pleasure and a look at -- postpone pleasure and a look at what they have in the future. to have a long-term view of their future and prepare for that future, instead of wasting time on things that really destroy their potential and limited their future. host: daughter of sarah palin has been a paid spokesperson encouraging teenage abstinence. she has said that abstinence is not necessarily realistic for all teenagers. guest: that is one opinion. host: is there more need for education on contraception? guest: i do not know a single teenager that does not know about contraception. there are birth control clinics on almost every corner. that is not the problem.

i think teenagers need to hear a clear message that if they want a bright future, they needed to delay sexual activity until they are married, not just until they are older. they need a clear message that this short circuits their future. they need to learn self control. they respond when you tell them you are not a victim of your hormones. many say they are driven by their hormones. they need to learn self discipline just like you and i need to learn self discipline. it is not impossible. there are thousands of young people that have been abstinent until marriage. it benefited them. we have such wonderful examples of people that have exercise self control and have a focused on training for the future. they are some of our most productive citizens and some of our happiest citizens.

host: mississippi, republican line. caller: a ninth -- i am kind of nervous so bear with me. i am a republican, but i lived in a state that is under the civil rights voting act. i have to announce whether i am a democrat or republican. it eliminates me for voting for conservative democrats. when i am looking at politics, i am looking at their view on abortion first, then on gay rights, and then down the line. to me, you cannot be a christian and a support abortion or be a christian and support all of the stuff on gay-rights. can it is clear in the bible about all of them. the bible, if you will read it,

responsibility and on up. i also truly believe anybody that believes in evolution cannot be a christian. guest: thanks for the call and your firm convictions. one of the things i really like is to see people who know where they stand and take that stand unapologetically. thank you for that. at concerned women for america, we take strong positions on issues and let the chips fall. we do not condemn other people. we walked a fine line for fighting for what we believe in and working to make sure that the things we believe should be in the laws of this country. we lobby for them on capitol hill. we think that is our responsibility as citizens and

christians. we stand a very firm on the issues that you talked about. we tried to do that without trying to condemn other people and without taking stances that would be offensive. we try to walk the fine line and be strong about our own personal beliefs and be unwavering on those beliefs. thank you for calling. we stand with you on those issues. host: on twitter, you are asked to comment on the statement of beingle be bachmann submissive to her husband. guest: i agree with her. the bible is very clear. women are to be submissive to

their husband. it does not say that women should be submissive to other men. i do not see this as a problem for her. this is her belief and my belief and that of most christian women. one thing most people forget is that the bible is very clear that a man should be willing to die for his wife. the command is for both the has been in the wife. the husband is to be submissive to the wife as well. a lot of people seem to forget that. submission is not a painful and. when you love each other and you are committed to each other, it means to be willing to sacrifice for that other person and work with that other person to find a common solution that is best for your family, and before you as a couple. submission is not a big burden that so many people think of it

as. it is a way a couple can become one together and start to think alike and work together to raise their children. people who have seen children play one parent against another, know what submission is all about. you have to stand united as a couple. there are certain circumstances where the wives opinion should prevail. if she has better judgment than her husband on a certain issue -- but the argument from the bible is about attitude. it is about willingness to be subservient or a willingness to will to another person. it is very ugly when you say a woman or a man that is dictatorial or oppressive of another person. the bible is very clear about that.

submission does not mean dictatorial. host: bachmann jokingly talked about the hurricane and the earthquake as an act of god. it is as displeasure for what washington is doing. what did the make of that? guest: i did not see it. i heard one person from north carolina that said jokingly that this is god is a way of cleaning of the earth. know what michele meant by her statement. i do not like people blaming god for acts of nature. he is all powerful and he could choose to stop it. i think it is counterproductive

to second-guess these kinds of things. i would not agree that it is an act of god. wherelet's go to new york nick is on our independent line. caller: bear with me. thanks for c-span. it is fascinating how your guests is able to pervert the english language. terms like pro-life, pro- marriage, pradesh family. -- pro-family. how can they be this when you would deny to women the right to control their own right to marry or what to do with their own body. do deny contraception in africa,

which is what a lot of our foreign aid goes to. i respect the audacity of her organization to choose whether or not a woman should have an abortion or not without knowledge. i have more to say, but i want to keep it short. guest: it is a two way street. we have a very strong views. we are very for life, marriage, family. obviously, you are not. you view that in a different way. we respect your right to do that. i hope you respect our right to take our stance just as strongly as you do.

are not anti all of the things you mentioned. you have to take a stand for life. it means that you oppose abortion. you have to take a stance for marriage, which means you opposed cohabitation ended the bourse and many things that are part of today's culture. and many things that are part of today's culture. when houston to personalw -- hen en you stoop to personal attacks, you bring the argument down to a level that is very destructive to arguments in this country. it is very productive to have conversations like we are having

today. it is counterproductive to have personal attacks on people whose views differ. if we will have a society with major respect, we have to treat each other with mutual respect for our personal views that differ from many people. we take very strong stances on abortion and for marriage and a strong stances for the family. the family breakdown has been so destructive and detrimental to our children in this nation. you probably agree with me on those issues. host: janice crouse is with concerned women for america. let's take a look at a report from "politico." political murder to natural

disaster. calling the event last week a wake-up call from above. she is not the first public figure to call the hurricane a message from the almighty. others suggest that new orleans may have triggered hurricane katrina with their gay pride parade. it is not a mainstay -- mainstream view. guest: that is an extreme way of putting things. everybody says natural disasters are a wake-up call. we have to recognize that these kinds of things happen. we have to be prepared for them. it is a wake-up call for us to get our house in order and do the things that we need to do that so often we neglect to do. that part of the statement i would agree with. troubles me that people make such a big deal about extreme

statements like that. particularly when it comes from conservative figures. i have heard many from the left that do not get that much attention. i bristle at that. those are personal opinions that have been stated. there is an element of truth in them. we have to view them as a wake- up calls. to attribute it as an act of god is very questionable. i have heard equally questionable use from the left as well. host: republican, a canton, ohio. caller: i have a brief comments and then a question. my comment on family values, [unintelligible] assad in syria has

family volumes. but it is not as productive -- values. but they may not be as productive as others in society. history has taught us that the former british empire of the 19th century and the soviet union both were enmeshed in a quagmire in afghanistan. anyone with any sense when not have jumped into the war the way he did -- guest: the democratic congress agreed that it was a valid and imperative effort. there you go. let me qualify. we are a pro-family organization. the term family values has so much associated with its that i do not really use that term anymore. it has a drug through so many

different pathways. we are very pro-family. the thing that distinguishes america from other nations is the fact that we have valued the family. our laws and our whole social structure has been to strengthen the family. as a married mom and dad with their natural born or adopted children. that has been the building block of our society. that is what has made as so unique. at the grass-roots level, we have had very committed people willing to build this nation and provide for this nation and a sacrifice for this nation to send their sons to fight for our freedom. that has been a very unique part of american culture. that is what we would like to preserve. the strong family unit that is a central part of our democratic society. host: a poll in may looking at

same-sex marriage. 53% report it. -- supported. -- support it. 45% oppose it. guest: many say it is shifting. some conservative organizations have publicly said we have lost that battle. i would like to think they are wrong. i'd like to think that mainstream america will prevail. the truth of the matter is that there are many families that have homosexual members. people are hesitant to speak out on that issue because of that. they care very deeply about people in their own families and their neighbors families. we speak out, because we care very deeply about children. every single study says very

clearly that a married mom and dad family is what is best for children. even the urban institute, which is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination, has done extensive research. all of the research is clear, whether it comes from the left or right and every made -- major university across the nation. children need a mom and a dad. same-sex marriage, we usually refer to it in quotation marks, because it is not marriage. marriage has been defied set -- defined since the beginning of civilization as a man and a woman. i would hate to think that the united states of america would be at the forefront of change in an institution that is provided so much stability across so many years of history. and so many nations. we are the first civilization that has instituted something that is so contrary to human nature and to the strength of a

nation. i hope we have not lost that battle. concerned women of america will continue to fight that battle right until we win it. host: you talked about some of the studies you have done. this from the science section of time magazine. it looked at how children feared that are raised by same-sex female couples and it talks about how they not only score similar to children of header social parents -- heterosexual parents. children in lesbian holmes scored higher than at some heterosexual couples.

that is strictly propaganda. when you look at studies done in mainstream universities, you see a completely different story. i hate to see isolated studies like that. when you have overwhelming research from america's major universities and research institutes that contradict that kind of thing -- how dare they put that out and use it as an overwhelming scientific finding. i do not know what you are referring to there. there are some flaws in that methodology. it does not conform to the basic research that is out there that is approved by the major researchers in this country. host: our guest is a beverly let hayes senior fellow. the website is here.

she is also an author and works with concerned women for america. thanks for joining us this morning. coming up in the program, we will talk about the shortage of prescription drugs. why is it happening and what does it mean? next a discussion on consumers and regulation. an update from c-span radio is next. >> the white house official says president obama will name a labor economist alan krueger to help -- head the economic council of advisers. he would replace austin who left the legislation are rare this month. metro in new york city is resuming service after hurricane irene costly shutdown of the service. wall street is set to open. the storm caused less damage

than feared. there are reports on personal spending that are up for july and personal income up 0.3. dow futures are up over 100 points. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. ♪ ♪

>> watch more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's web site for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the landscape with twitter feed, facebook updates, candidate bios, and links to see spent media partners. -- c-span media partners. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> "washington journal with iraq continues. -- washington journal" continues.

host: david arkush joins us. -- a special agencies are cutting burdensome regulations. they may save millions of dollars of paperwork in the coming year. what is your reaction to that? guest: everyone is against any kind of wasteful or burdensome regulation. it is very hard to pass regulations without approving over and over again that you taxes as an agency that the benefits dramatically out weigh the costs. the bottom line is that they are good and there is little whistle red tape. it is good that the administration wants to root out whatever they can find. they will not find very much. it is not a good use of their time in resources.

the more pressing concern is regulating in areas that we do not have enough regulation. it could -- the lack of regulation of offshore drilling resulted in the massive bp oil spill that destroyed economies in the gulf. we had a raft of problems from china. we had to fix for new legislation in congress. there are countless ways in which we need more regulation. the priority of the administration should focus on how our deficits are, making our products safe and our environment safe and healthy. having something we can pass onto our children. making sure the economy works again and works for ordinary people to get back to work. this is an unfortunate distraction.

host: an opinion piece in the " wall street journal" last week. sacrificing public health or safety. talks about some of the items on the cutting list. many of the reforms focus on small business. the department of defense recently issued a new role to accelerate payments on contracts to as many as 60,000 businesses, improving their cash flow. i will jump in and look at some of the other items. they are moving from a paper base to electronic reporting. the department of labour is finalizing a role. [unintelligible] guest: this kind of proves my

point. simplifying some warnings, speeding up the cutting of checks. these are good ideas. some 500 of these types of reform that they came up with. they can save $10 billion. not an enormous amount of savings over the next five years. eight months to do these. epa should be figuring out how to make some of this electronic. they have limited budgets and resources. it should be working on climate change, clean water, clean air. to those initiatives are stalling and being subject to the masses while campaigning to frustrate affirmative protections that american people actually need. the american people should be expanding in a little more energy helping them move forward

in protecting americans as opposed to having a look back at their past regulations. one of the problems with these put backs is not just senate distractions, but it feeds into a lot of that rhetoric. there just is not enough of voice in the system. it would be helpful if the president would show more leadership on the issue and talk about good regulation and how much we value regulation and want to make our government as efficient as possible. they should the dispute some of the false rhetoric out there instead of a feeling it. host: is it crucial -- is that up for discussion to be cut? guest: there is not a lot of public discussion.

they are looking around on the margin for ways to do things like convert paper records to electronic records. there are recommendations that not publicly have been delayed or shelves, somewhat inexplicably. it seems to have happened as part of the general movement of the obama administration to say we want to take a closer look at recommendations. some of these are very unfortunate. one example is osha will have a rule to require a check box on their form. there is already a form. it causes them to lose time at work and that sort of thing. there is a form to report what kind of injury it is. there are four or five

categories. the final category is another. the vast majority of injuries go into that category. likely because they are muscular skelter, ergonomics problems. we have a far too late to it -- far too little data about this type of workplace injury, because it always gets jumbled together in this other category. there is no way to study it. osha will add another check box to this form. they will add one more for muscular skeletal disorders. they did to their notice for rule making a couple of years ago. a couple of comments on the rules. there're going to issue it in january. there were obvious important benefits. we will learn about what to do

about it. the costs were miniscule. a dollar and some change the first year for every employer. then 50 cents or something every year. this was one of the regulations delayed indefinitely in january right after the obama administration announced its wastes. to read out wastweed ot they held a special small business form. they read-published proposals to reinstate the rules as of june. the final rules have not come out yet. they have been delayed. this is an example of a common sense role. it is being delayed for no good

reason. host: let's go to the phones. caller: you look absolutely beautiful this morning. we are glad to have you on here. you're doing a great job. we have this keystone of xl pipeline mischief trying to come through from canada to texas. they have no heart for local environment, nor do i think they do for the midwest. i am under the impression that it goes through a major obstacle. are there any regulations in place to protect the people if this thing blows up? i know the cap and a trading went downhill. what are some other environmental plans for the next

decade to leave it in a better shape than what we are in right now? thanks. guest: on the question with the pipeline -- if the pipeline burst and regulations to protect people, you need more regulations to prevent it from bursting. once it does, a big problem is on your hands. you want to protect the workers doing the cleanup. there will be some liability for the oil companies and those representing the pipeline. what you need is affirmative protections in advance to stop a pipeline it like that from bursting. i do not know what sort of regulations would be in place. the experience that we have seen recently with bp, one of the problems we have in the regulatory system is instead of focusing on the american people

and protecting public health and safety, we focused too much on the industries they are to regulate. i hope this is not a scenario where we have been agency to crazy with the oil industry. but it is very common. that is the sort of thing that in our view, administration should be focusing on. to make sure they are doing their jobs properly. working on the margins to reduce a little bit of paper work in there. your other question was -- i am having trouble remembering. what was it? host: i will access it in a moment in my brain. the interpretation of regulations. guest: that is an interesting point. there actually is some

senseless disorganization among regulators. they are the most frequently excited -- there is the most frequently cited example. it is complicated as to who has what. it does not make a lot of sense to an outsider. it means something gets neglected or falls through the cracks. trying to fix that kind of problem, mostly because of the difficulties of doing it here. when you talk about taking power away from one agency and giving it to another and consolidating it in some way, you get into politics, in which they have jurisdiction on these sorts of things. it is a very good point. there is the work to be done.

it is harder to get it done. that is why nobody is talking about doing it. host: republican and. caller: do you get involved with the labor disputes and to be specific, national labor relations? guest: my group does not. we work with some that do. caller: i would like to know how you feel if -- let me rephrase this. do you have any objection of the national labor relations bringing suit on boeing and not letting them have a manufacturing plant in south carolina? guest: i am not particularly well-informed on that issue. my understanding is that it

sounds like a very reasonable thing for them to do. caller: you are pro-union? no doubt about that. i was just curious. free enterprise capital expenditures, capitalism is being tested by this president. the last paragraph of an editorial in the "wall street journal" was the mph moratorium and the journalist's opinion that the epa should probably hold off on a lot of their projects. they are shutting down cold. the president in the past when asked about labor relations board said decision, it is out of my hands. my goodness. out of my hands. who put this gentleman in the position of power? ."

it seems like this is one area where the president has said a few things that contradicts what unions and democrats and progressives want. he has not been very supportive of nrb. that is not surprising both of that he apparently disagreed as a personal matter, and he was willing to say so as a political matter. host: washington, d.c., independent line. caller: in terms of the regulations, when ever regulations are proposed, to fund these agencies appropriately, so they can do their job. you must hire the investigators, fund the operation, so these

folks can do their job. you have a group in congress now, most of the time in respect of of party, who want to see absolutely no regulation whatsoever of business, of the environment. my grandfather was not a college-educated man. he said if you cannot breathe the air and drink the water, we are all in trouble. guest: there is a movement to prevent regulation. it is interesting. the movement is not what it would seem. the it ministration should -- there is a bill in congress. i think it is the reigning in

executive role of scrutiny act or something like that. what it would require is whenever an agency passes a new significant role, it would not go into effect unless congress approves it. everyone knows how difficult it is to pass a bill in congress. you are saying there will not be very many regulations. it is a way of ensuring that there is far enough regulation and what little there is, there is far less helpful to the public and is more in tune to what special interest want. there is a big campaign to support this bill and a big push with lots of rhetoric. there is a story being told about the problem in the economy right now being over regulation.

but all of this is, an attempt to craft messages that are useful in the current political environment. people are out of work. the economy is in very bad shape. some say regulation is the problem. regulation is not the problem in the economy. it would be a large part of the solution. there is a reason we have the financial crisis. there was too little regulation in the financial sector. that is a complete reversal of what is actually going on. even more interesting, this anti-regulatory campaign, it showed that this campaign to support this grains act, which is supposedly a measure to protect small businesses and help them create jobs and get the economy back on track by reducing regulation is actually

supported by some of the largest corporations in the country, the largest trade associations in the country, and a high concentration of utilities. vying foranization's the bill, 26 out of 48. -- there is a broad bill that will frustrate most regulations, including common sense, important regulations that everyone agrees are necessary. it is a campaign that is primarily through electric utilities. there are specific things that epa is considering doing. businesses clean up the air and some businesses retire some of the oldest and courteous generators and in the country. host: this act has not gotten very much attention.

there are republicans that support this and are advocating the reins act. let's look at what steve forbes, made -- look at a common steve forbes made on -- comment steve forbes made on "washington journal." >> $1.80 trillion a year. 15 billion, take it. be grateful for it. there are massive regulations already coming. on the data franc bill, thousands of pages of regulations in the pipeline on that. same thing with the health care bill. while they make a few reforms on

regulations. for each one they get rid of, there are hundreds that are coming our way. host: talking about the efforts of the obama administration to eliminate or ease regulations. he says they do not go far enough. guest: there is a lot of misinformation out there. steve forbes leading talking point was one of the biggest pieces of misinformation out there. he says regulations cost our economy $1.50 trillion a year. i regret even having to repeat that to make a point. it is such a gross distortion. a very common talking point on capitol hill. it is said uniformly among republicans. everybody knows better, because groups like mine and others and the obama administration have countered it and made that clear.

the study is riddled with flaws. it is an inside outside critique. on the outside, -- the biggest problem is if it does not look at the benefits. it is as $1.70 trillion worth of cost created, but it does not look at any benefits for the economy. the white house commissioned a study every year. major regulations and compares the cost of benefits. every study that comes out over the bush and obama administration, every study has found the benefits of major roles vastly of the way the costs. the benefits of these roles are somewhere between 2 and 14 times as great as the costs.

-- host: you talk about some of the benefits of government regulation. continuing with what you are on now, give us an example of how regulations saved money. is it it saves medical costs and hospital bills from a child that get lead poisoning? guest: there are a bunch of ways to save money. first of all, they save lives. lives are worth a lot of money and productivity. there is something else that gets lost in the equation. the value for human life. even if you have to put everything through this narrow lens of economic analysis, it is

worth a lot. there is that simple fact. the other comes in the form of health costs. when you clean the air, you prevent asthma, allergies, heart disease, a whole range of cardiovascular problems. these have benefits or trillions of dollars that reverberate across the entire economy. it is a very big drag on the economy. economic waste is generated by pollution, by health problems that result in an safe workplaces, and varmints, drugs. it is a great benefit to the economy if you can fix this and get people working. host: david arkush congress watch director, public citizen. he taught in the appellate

litigation program at the georgetown university law center. he is clark for the u.s. court of appeals. he has worked in a private public interest law firm. firms. he was a statewide coordinator of missouri votes for fair elections. guest: i have two questions -- caller: i have two questions. would you agree that when it comes to regulation, taking into consideration the financial collapse and the will spill, that the greed is bipartisan -- or else bill, that greed is bipartisan? they end up going to work for these companies once they retire from government.

i mean, this is a bipartisan thing as far as people not necessarily keeping their eye on the ball. have you ever actually owned the business and had to deal with regulations when it comes to trying to make money and hire people and sustain an business. do you know what that is like? guest: two questions -- i guess it is a comment and question. greed is bipartisan. i agree and disagree. i certainly agree it is bipartisan. i think a lot of people would agree. the way in which i really agree is that the problem of deregulation has been bipartisan. the deregulation of the financial sector that led to the collapse of the economy and lead to so many people being out of work -- led to so many people being out of work happened under both republicans and democrats. that trend has been going on

under several administrations and was continued by the george w. bush administration. problem there is definitely bipartisan. there is just an overwhelming national trend or national, sort of, opinion. people think regulation sounds bad. it sound burdensome. when you ask people about a very particular, individual protections -- to you want clean air? do you want clean water? do you want consumer protection? they always say yes with overwhelming popularity. on this question of administrative agencies being too cozy with the industries that they are regulating, that is also a bipartisan problem. i will say that the problem was a lot worse in some agencies under the most recent bush administration that has been under some democratic

administrations. he tried to a. industry lobbyists to head certain agencies -- he tried to appoint industry lobbyists to head certain agencies. i do not think there is any view of argument that things there is a good idea of putting someone in charge of our program who thinks it is a bad idea and ought to be eliminated. host: 1 following are -- one follower on twitter asks -- caller: i think there has been a good investigation. i think the president is implementing rules against banning gifts and travel funded by industry. there is a revolving-door ben -- a reverse of the revolving-door

ban, first of its kind. there had been bans on going to industry after you work in the government. that has been in the legislative branch. in the congress, there is a cooling-off period before you can go and work for a lobbying firm and lobbied a member of congress that you used to work for -- lobby a member of congress that you used to work for. if you are a lobbyist, you cannot go into the government and work there. as types of measures should help some. i think there's another problem, even bigger than greed and a revolving door, around whether or not the administration is committed enough to the very idea of regulation. their focus is too much on concerns about overly burdensome rules and not enough on putting

rules in place to protect the environment and protect americans. i remain concerned about minerals management and a number of agencies. there is a question, at the core, as to whether this administration is committed to doing the types of regulations that we need. caller: good morning. i want to correct the current financial crises -- the idea that the current financial crises -- i want to suggest it goes back to lbj and the vietnam war. we had nixon take office, dealing with the crushing debt. the dollar was let to float. that has contributed to a lot of our financial problems today. i would even argue to say that a lot of problems in the

realization process goes back to the '60s -- 1960's. i think it has to do with regulation. it is an either "us or them" type of mentality. you are either union or management. you are either a bigot or racist. it is either/or. in reality, it should be more like "we" as a situation. i remember after boot camp, coming back, there was a point where we sounded like one single, loud footstep. guest: i agree that we ought to be able to come together on certain things. one of the problems is the political warfare that we have, the sort of partisanship that does not help. the parties like to define differences and fight each other over things instead of working together.

there is a lot to work together on. the american people are generally, broadly supportive of, for example, environmental protections -- clean air and clean water. instead of carrying that out and doing a good job of the efficient and effective government, there is political trench warfare over the epa and what can and cannot do. host: a republican from arkansas. caller: i am trying to get a patent filing. i just heard there is a three- year wait to get a patent filing completed. is that true? how is that going to effect a business that i would like to start -- a fact a business that i would like to start? -- affect the business that i would like to start? guest: i do not know. i am not an expert on that. if there is a three-year delay,

maybe it is because the patent trade office does not have enough funding, like so many other agencies. it is really a crippling problem. many of them have had their budgets starved for over a decade. they have far too few employees to do what they need to do. people tend to think, when they think about the federal budget and what government is doing -- i think people tended think that the bulk of government expenditures is for these big agencies likely -- tend to think that the bulk of government expenditures is for these big agencies. most of it goes to social security, medicaid, and defense. it is a tiny fraction of the budget to goes toward -- that goes toward the people who protect our water and air. these people are desperately overworked. they need a lot more resources. host: house republicans gear up for regulatory revamping.

with everyone from president obama to his republican challengers -- guest: again, this is not about spurring the economy. this is about giveaways to certain corporate supporters. pushing back against the epa is mostly about helping electric utilities. you can see it on the day that in who has been lobbying for these policies -- see it in the data in two has been lobbying

for these policies. most of these types of things are just the current rhetoric about how to give major corporations what they want. right now, the economy is bad. we say it will improve the economy to deregulate these areas. that is wrong. you do not grow the economy by making the air dirtier war by refusing to clean the air. you can grow the economy by requiring cleaner air. if you require power plants to clean up their emissions, oftentimes, new technology has to be developed. the most common technology on the smokestack is the scrubber. you can talk to business people who have been producing these scrubbers. they employ a lot of people. regulation can spur innovation and can spur jobs. more important, the problem in the economy is a lack of demand.

people do not have jobs and people are losing their houses. people who do not have jobs do not have money to spend. therefore, the economy stalls. if we want to fix the economy, we need to put money in people's pockets. the way we do that is to put them back to work. we have a big jobs program. it is the most effective way to put people back to work. the government should hire people or develop projects and hire private contractors to hire people and repair infrastructure, that sort of thing. there are easy way to get the economy back on track. none of them have to do with giving away our air, essentially, so that electric utilities can make more money. host: clearwater, florida, mark on our independent line. caller: i have a comment and question. for a free society, given one unelected -- giving epa all of

this power. the rest of the planet is doing what they can to keep their society working. is and if you talk to think that we can save the environment -- futile to think that we can save the environment? host: do you want to see more regulations? do you want us to get rid of hours -- ours? caller: companies live on this planet as well. technology has come a long way. we are losing hundreds of thousands of birds every year through our windows. no one seems to be concerned about that. one cause and effect is another problem. technology and companies do what they always do, improve their business, and it will take care of themselves -- itself.

i do not think the current should be involved -- the government should be involved. host: there is a story about wind turbines and birds, so it is in the news. guest: if you look at regulations on balance, the numbers are clear -- the vast majority bring far more benefits than costs. on this question of whether the market will fix itself over time, we have experimented with that a number of times. the answer is clear. we just experimented with radical deregulation in the financial-services sector. the banking sector essentially a imploded. it destroyed itself. before we had good regulation of drugs and medical devices, before we had the fda, those were the days of snake oil, where anybody could sell you anything from the back of their truck. there was no effective market.

the point is not just that things were unsafe. the market did not exist or it broke down. there was no market for companies to do research and pro--- and produce safe, effective, and sound drugs until there was a government regulator overseeing that market. if you do not have somebody policing the market, separating the good from the bad, then bad behavior does not go punished. bad behavior, as long as it is profitable, wins out over good behavior. we do not want to have an economy where there is not a functional market, because you do not know how to -- who to trust and nobody has incentive to do their job. we need regulation to help create and define market and make sure that markets work for us. markets do not function and are without some baseline or regulation -- markets do not function at all without some

baseline or regulation. caller: i applaud the efforts to convert about more regulation. i think the big problem is the lack of scientific, his store, and economic literacy. people do not understand the ecology of life. without water, there is no life. without oxygen, there is no life. to turn it all over to corporations is insane. by their very bylaws, corporations exist to maximize return on investment of their stockholders, pure and simple. the pay no attention to social consequences sort ecological -- they pay no attention to social consequences for ecological consequences -- social or ecological consequences.

i applaud your efforts. without our regulatory agencies, the amount of environmental degradation in this country would be exponential. my question is -- you have people in the republican party. i have lobbied here in western new york against hydraulic fracturing. even with people in positions to have no scientific knowledge whatsoever. it is astounding the level of ignorance. these people are in charge. they are on environmental committees. when i mentioned for mo -- mentioned the poisoning of the drinking water, they had no idea what i was talking about. i had to explain. how can you be on the committee and not understand that the

migration, when it is your job to regulate -- understand methane migration, when it is your job to regulate? guest: it's true that congress does not have the technical expertise to regulate in a lot of these areas. that's what congress created a lot of these agencies in the first place. it does not work perfectly, but there is some sense to congress setting broad policy and delegating, passing broad statutes and delegating authority to agencies that have more expertise to nail out the specifics. that is the basic model. it is really sensible. it is that arrangement that shows what a bad idea this act is. essentially, it cannot possibly be a serious idea. the notion that any major rule

passed by an agency has to be evaluated and passed by congress. they do not understand a lot of these rules. they could. they could learn about them, but it would take a tremendous amount of time and resources. it would clog up the entire system. no one plans to do that. no one is taking it seriously at all. the basic idea is to stop regulations and going into effect -- stop regulations from going into the feffect. there's an interesting difference between the last two callers. having such influence on the economy. the lack of accountability of major corporations. it is an interesting contrast. a frequently and told part of that story that most americans untold part about -- and tol

of that store that most americans do not know about is that the most heavily regulated -- a frequently untold story that most americans do not know about is that the most heavily regulated agencies are those that are trying to make changes. they have dozens of statutory requirements. they have to do repeated analyses. look at the impact on the environment, small business, local government, state government, small business -- the amount of analysis is incredible. it is very hard for them to get anything done. we did a study of a very common- sense rule in the construction industry to improve worker

safety. labor unions wanted it, public groups wanted it, even employers wanted it. host: david arkush, public citizen is the organization. he is the congress watch director. thank you for being with us. coming up, we'll talk about shortages of vital prescription drugs. first, an update from c-span3 radio. >> personal income increased 0.3% last month, slightly higher than the 0.2% in june. consumer spending rose. -- 020% in july -- consumer spending rose 0.8% in july. consumer spending accounts for 70% of economic activity. more economic news at 11:00 a.m. president obama announces his choice for the next head of the

white house council of economic advisers. "wall street journal" says alan krueger will be selected to replace boston will be -- austan goolsbee. it is not clear when the major general made the comments that were leaked to youtube. china's defense ministry did not immediately respond to questions about the video. calls to the national defense university, where the general is a lecturer, went unanswered. those are some of the latest headlines.

>> what more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying -- watch more videos of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying at c- span.org/campaign2012. it is all at c-

span.org/campaign2012. >> "washington journal" continues. host: gardiner harris, thank you for coming in. you reported a story recently about the u.s. scrambling to ease a shortage of vital madison among those -- vital medicine. what kind of drugs? guest: drugs that are vital for cancer patients. there is a crucial drug for leukemia patients. a lot of the regimens important for childhood leukemia, that can cure childhood leukemia, vital to the whole disease are now in short supply. the same thing with colon cancer. there is an older drug for breast cancer, which you might

remember was a drug that was made from yew trees. it was originally in short supply because there were few of the trees. it began synthesized -- became a synthesized. it is also in short supply. when you undergo an operation, there are some antibiotics -- there are now more than 180 drugs in short supply. host: you interviewed some patients who are not getting the drugs that they need. you profiled one patient, 47, north carolina. she has breast cancer and she is worried that she might not be able to get taxol, which is in short supply.

how life-threatening are these shortages for patients? guest: they are life- threatening. there are all sorts of patients who have to switch. cancer is a disease where there have been decades of research trying to come up with precisely the right regiment that leads to the best outcomes. there are some drugs that you can sort of substitute, but they are not guaranteed to give you that outcomes that the precise regimen does. a lot of doctors are having to adjust on the fly and hope that the regimen they come up with can be as effective, but there are no guarantees. earlier in the midst of a terrible disease like cancer --

when you are in the midst of a terrible disease like cancer, the last thing you want is to worry about whether the drug regimen you are taking is not going to be there or to extend out your chemotherapy treatment. instead of going for a terrible four weeks in which you lose your hair and have terrible side effects, sometimes these people have to go five or six weeks. it makes their lives that much more complicated. host: looking at pictures from "the new york times." where is this shortage coming from? guest: there is no simple answer. there are about five different reasons for this. the main reason for this is that there has been consolidation in the generic drug industry over the last 10 years. instead of having dozens of mom-

and-pop, small, generic drug companies with small manufacturing facilities, there are now fewer than a handful of multinational, multibillion- dollar corporations. they have consolidated a lot of their operations in massive facilities. many of them make hundreds and hundreds of drugs. they are constantly juggling both facilities and medicines. every year, there are more drugs that are approved. there are more than 4000 job -- drugs that are approved. every year, shortages have been with us. when you have more than 4000 drugs in need, there will always be some of them that, for one reason or another, are in short supply. these shortages are getting worse because many of these companies are so massive and they're going to places increasingly -- going to places,

increasingly, like india and china. india and china are not inspected by the fda. increasingly, there are problems with supplies, particularly for some of these adjustable medicines, which are very risky if they are not manufactured correctly. you can die very fast if there is a contamination to an injectable medicine. when you factor in these drugs, the fda rapidly shots down facilities. now they are producing hundreds of drugs in one facility. if a facility gets shut down, dozens, if not hundreds, of drugs can go in short supply. host: if you want to join the conversation, here are the numbers to call. republicans -- (202)624-1115. democrats -- (202)624-1111. independents -- (202)624-0760.

let's go to william on our independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for accepting my call. host: you bet. caller:, to of it is that the fda is tightening or changing -- caller: how much of it is that the fda is tightening or changing standards? the manufacturers are saying the cost to comply with some of these rules are excessive. they are either stopping production. in some cases, in contact lens, they have literally stopped making the product. guest: it is interesting that this conversation is a continuation of the conversation that preceded me with david arkush. it is true. i think there has been broad agreement that the fda has gradually stepped up its

standards. everybody pretty much agrees in the industry that those standards need to be high, particularly with these sorts of medicines, injectables. if there is contamination, you can die extremely rapidly. there is broad agreement among everybody involved, including industry, the fda needs to have high standards and to actually enforce those standards in a much tougher way. the fda never in specs plants in china and india. they have become crucial to our nation's drug supply. the plant in china and india can go more than 50 years without an inspection. many of these plans have never been inspected. it would take the fda 13 years, at present rate, to inspect all foreign drug plants.

the industry believes that it is so vital that the fda get to these plans more often for safety reasons that the industry, in the midst of agreeing to give the fda $300 million annually, a problem% of its revenue -- about 1% of its revenue. everybody believes government is the answer. everybody involved, including industry, wants to actually pay for greater government participation in that answer. host: gardiner harris. one of his sources in a recent story points out the number of cancer patients diagnosed in a year is relatively easy to predict. here is what our guest wrote.

guest: again, this is an issue where -- we can talk about safe food and some other things. everybody involved in food, including manufacturers and consumers -- everyone agrees that the fda needs to do a better job of ensuring that the food supply, the foods that we give our children are safe. everybody involved, including industry, wants to give the fda more money. in fact, the industry wants to be taxed to make this food safer. the same thing is true minister of supply issue -- true in this drug supply issue. some of these drugs are going in short supply because the private market incentives are not there. when the drugs are in short

supply, the prices go up, sometimes 20 fold. people are coming up with the idea that the government put aside a year's worth of supplies of these crucial medicines. the cdc has a stockpile of critical medicines. these are the kinds of medicines like antibiotics, and a virus, and denim products -- antivirals, antivenom products. there is a question as to whether the national stockpile should be expanded to include some of these medicines for chronic diseases. they are vital for the health and well-being of people in this country. host: shortages by year -- in 2001, there were -- and at this point, we're already in

the 180-market. .et's go to hawaii guest: aloha. i want to thank you for being extremely knowledgeable. diana ceo of one of -- i am as ceo of one of the rapid-growing pharmacology companies. everyone of us inside the business really knows what is going on. manufacturers of generic drugs -- manufacturing and generic drug is simple -- manufacturing a generic drug is simple. we saw an increase, in the last 50 days, in the primary drugs by

six and a%, as reflected in a recent new york times " -- we saw an increase, in the last 50 days, in the primary drug shortage of -- costs by 600%, as reflected in a recent "new york times" article. taxol could become unavailable. cancerusa.org is moving forward with a three-pronged strategy. they are trying to get cancer medicine to those who cannot afford the medicines. they are trying to implement

some traditional, managerial methodologies that we all use in business to improve our operational efficiencies. the biggest problem -- the total problem is that they deliberately cut back the primary manufacturers -- the primary manufacturers deliberately cut back on the production of these drugs so that they can see an increase the price and force people to have no alternative but to go out and buy these things that extend a person's life by just a few months. they just extend the missouri. host: let's get a response. thank you for talking about your own personal experience. let's talk about the last thing you mentioned -- this idea of manufacturers being able to raise the price by holding supply. where is the incentive to keep the market flooded with drugs? the market goes up and they

become more valuable when there are less of them available. guest: it is tempting to think there is a conspiracy going on. it is true that, some of these older medicines, when they go in short supply, doctors turned to far more expensive drugs. 20 times, 100 times more expensive. we are seeing this conspiracy to spend a lot of money. the cancer drugs are not sustainable. the new entry price for cancer medicines is about $100,000. it was $60,000 four years ago. in three or four years, it will be $150,000. there are a number of drugs that have come out recently. if you go through the gamut, you will spend $500,000 and extend

your life by only a few months. what is going on with cancer drugs is entirely unsustainable. these shortages are not part of a conspiracy to move people to these more expensive medicines. companies making the less- expensive medicines are very different from the companies making the more-expensive medicines. it is some real disconnects in the system for supplying medicine. one of the issues -- we should all be concerned that our health care system is now entirely dependent on china. 80% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients in all the medicines that we take now come mostly from chinese and indian plants. china and india basically supply nearly all of the crucial medicines that we rely on. we do not make, in this country, antibiotics, any more.

we do not make many of the anesthesia drugs that you absolutely have to have if you are going to have the surgery. we do not make any more of the hormonal drugs that you absolutely have to have. they are nearly all made in china. if we ever got into a situation which china where they closed their borders to drug imports, our health care system would come to a crashing halt relatively quickly. it is a very strange situation. the last and democratic plant was a bristol-myers -- to last and idiotic plant in the united states was a bristol-myers -- plant inantibiotic the united states was a bristol- myers plant. aspirin -- there is a small plant that doesn't even supply all of bayer's needs.

if you take the men's -- take vitamins -- they are supplied by china. from a strategic perspective, we're getting all of our medicines and vitamins, particularly over-the-counter medicines from china and india. many of these plans are simply not being inspected. cot,: nadine in press go arizona. caller: thank you. i want to note there is a list of medications on the web site -- i want to know if there is a list of medications on the web site -- a website. guest: yes. the fda -- host: we have it here.

they list the current drug shortages. they should the manufacturer, why it is delayed, and related information about when the drug might be coming out, and who else to check with you find an inventory. guest: there is a university with a large list of medicines even slightly in short supply. go to the university of utah web sites -- website and type in "shortage." host: looking at the top ones on the fda. it shows the company and products. hospira -- out of a drug because there was higher-than- anticipated demand. it is an installation -- inhalation solution. we see increasing demand,

higher-than-expected demand as reasons. guest: hospira is one. a manufacturer will suddenly and unexpectedly dropped out. the manufacturers cannot make up for the volume needed. the largest generic drug company in the world right now is teva pharmaceuticals. we want to build a very large plants -- they want to build a very large plants in california. they were making dozens of products in the california plant. products went in short supply. other manufacturers could not make up for the shortfall. a lot of the drugs that are vitally needed are in short supply because teva cannot come out with them. host: akron, ohio, mike,

republican. good morning. caller: good morning. if you have heard of cannabinoids, your body tries to make cannabinoids to fight off cancer. they are naturally found in the oil of marijuana, of hemp plants. anybody with cancer should research this. pharmaceutical companies are going to start trying to isolate the cannabinoids and release it. people can create it on their own, by making and oil out of this simple -- an oil out of this simple plant. guest: you're on the republican line? oddly enough, cannabinoids are a

hot area of research. there is a wasting-away disease where you throw up a lot. there is a lot of research around solving that problem of nausea in cancer. also, there is a very big investigation of cannabinoids in fat. there is a big fat pill that was made by sanofi-aventis. theypeople smoke pot, get the munchies. sanofi-aventis came up with a cannabinoid-blocker to block the abidine that comes with smoking -- appetite that

comes with smoking pot. the fda found there were other side effects. the cannabinoid area of research is a very hot one. there are dozens of different cannabinoids. the work continues on them. host: on twitter -- guest: one of the reasons why writing about health care is so interesting is that it is one of those areas where the profit incentives and lives often come head-to-head. and so, i've covered the pharmaceutical industry for more than a dozen years. i have written dozens of stories about drug makers putting their

own profits ahead of people's lives. that continues to this day in certain parts of the health care sector. of course, there are plenty of other stories about -- this is not just pharmaceutical companies that do this. hospitals will do this. doctors will do this. they will do procedures on patients, even when those procedures are not effective for helpful, because it makes them money -- not effective or helpful, because it makes them money. we have a health care system where we are trying to use private incentives to make it more efficient. patients are seen as profit centers. patients can be harmed as a result. "the: gardiner harris with the new york times." his beat covers public health.

he talked about vaccines cleared against autism. his reporting in kentucky included black-lung composition and -- compensation eand earned awards. good morning. caller: thank you for your time this morning and your excellent research. i am a person with parkinson's disease. you're probably well aware that teva plays a rather critical role in the supply of things like medications for people with parkinson's disease. i fully advocate a holistic approach, but, without taking

these medications every two hours and 40 minutes, i cannot even think of what would result. can you comment on that? your situation demonstrates why something needs to be done. there are a lot of people out there who survived only because there are medicines that keep them alive -- survive only because there are medicines that keep them alive. there are a lot of effort on top of the hill to deuce and then about this. the very idea that these medicines might not be there ourn people need them, in y ou instance every 2 1/2 hours --

when congress comes back in session, i think you'll see a lot of effort and talk about what can be done to make sure these medicines are here. this is not just the day-to-day issue of making sure manufacturing goes according to plan. people are worried about the strategic issue. we depend entirely, as i said before, on china and india. our relationship continuing and doing well with those countries. for us to get those vital ingredients for those medicines. a lot of people have started to wake up to the fact that that is worrisome. host: here in washington, d.c., mark on the republican line. caller: there was an fda report about the majority of ingredients in the are drugs

coming from china and india -- in our drugs coming from china. guest: right. caller: i was wondering if you could comment about the implications for the whole pharmacy, pounding industry -- pharmacy compounding industry. guest: are you talking about the pharmacy compounding in the united states using these ingredients? caller: exactly. we have the stuff from china that we do not know where it is coming from. guest: are you worried about three importation or the -- about reimportation or the compounding? caller: the concerns have been raised moron the latter -- more on the latter.

you don't have the good manufacturing process that the generics or branded products have. guest: the drug industry is stood up in its various components. the largest is the generic drug industry. they make 75% of all prescription drugs that you and i take. the smaller part of the industry, although it takes the vast majority of the money -- we spend 10% of the generics. we get 75% of the volume in that part of the industry. a little under 90% of the money goes to the branded drugs, the drugs advertised on evening news shows. about 23% or 24% of the prescriptions go there. there is a tiny slice put

together by small pharmacies, some very large pharmacies, that are quasi-manufacturing facilities themselves. they are supposed to compound medications for specific patients themselves. there are some drugs they compound in large beatches, -- batches, which makes fda very nervous. there are constant problems with these batch-processed pharmacy compounds. there are a number of deaths attributed to them. host: there is a report on

msnbc.com. the price they're willing to pay shows that their average market was -- markup was 650%. they will go to whatever lengths they can to get it. guest: the drug industry is simple, until you get into these situations, and then it gets very complicated. they hand off the drugs to distributors. are two large distribution companies -- there are two large distribution companies.

the trucks bring the drugs to facilities, and then they distribute them around the country. there are pilot fish to the big sharks, and their business is arbitraging little shortage situations. they try to figure out ahead of time what drugs might be in short supply and they buy a whole bunch of them. or they buy ahead of price increases. they are the day traders of the pharmaceutical industry. sometimes, they can cause a shortage situation. rumors might go out about a

drug in short supply. the date traders buy -- day traders buy up supply. sure enough, there is a shortage. if you go to any hospital, you will see dozens of faxed offers from these companies. we will charge you a lot more, but at least you'll get it. host: the gray market isn't illegal? guest: it is becoming less legal. there have been a number of laws put in place to be sure that drugs are coming from the appropriate place. as long as gray-market suppliers

have clear -- can clearly show that they got this from inappropriate place, then it is legal -- an appropriate place, then it is legal. oftentimes, they do real preparation and buy -- re- appropriation and buy from europe, then resell it. that's illegal. host: as long as the provenance -- guest: as long as they have the opera every province -- appropriate provenance, it is legal. sometimes provenance is not as legal as it is made out to be. host: charlene. caller: i take a complete

replacement thyroid. it is much better than the synthetic. it is getting hard to get supplied. the industry is more corporatized. there are a lot of pigs being processed into foods. there are still lots of thyroids. i do not know why it is getting more expensive. my mother was an rn. i have been in contact with world war ii rn's my whole life. a couple of them have said that we should go back to the drugs from then. they did better. that was the feedback i got. i watched my mother and many

other people go through the end of their lives in the hospital, be over-medicated. i am personally not sure, if i get diagnosed with cancer, if i would go to the hospital. i don't know what i'll do. i keep seeing more and more money. host: let's get a response. guest: there was a lot. 3/4 of medicines come from a plant source or were discovered from a plant source. most of them eventually move to and synthetic manufactured -- a synthetic manufacturer. plant sources, while wonderful, can be in short supply.

the quality can vary from batch to batch when you rely on natural supply. taxol is a classic example of a drug discovered from the pacific yew tree and there was a process that the national cancer institute went through, testing natural product after natural product against cancer receptors. stumbling on to the pacific yew tree. when bristol-myers figured out a synthetic way of making taxol, it was a huge breakthrough. taxol had been fairly expensive and in short supply. i think we aren't going back on this. as to what you